Being a statement of the obvious, it is rarely stated but should be often: Every new catastrophe in Iraq is a reminder to Canadians how right Jean Chrétien was in begging off George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion and how profoundly wrong Stephen Harper, Ernie Eves, Tim Hudak, Michael Ignatieff and some others in the political, academic and media establishment were in wanting us to jump on that war bandwagon.

The invasion and the subsequent eight-year occupation of Iraq are not unrelated to what’s unfolding now — a jihadist militia taking control of the northern part of Iraq and neighbouring Syria, a wide swath where it hopes to establish a caliphate, sharia and all. Americans are not solely to blame but let’s not pretend that they have had nothing to do with it.

Some critics blame U.S. President Barack Obama for having done the exact opposite of Bush. The president abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011 and did not leave any American forces and airbases behind.

Yet others solely blame the Sunni-Shiite divisions among Muslims — the ruling party in Baghdad being Shiite while the murdering and pillaging militia is a Sunni outfit. The barbarous tactics of ISIS — the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (the Levant) — are not that different from those of Boko Haram in Nigeria orAl Shabab in Somalia and Kenya.

Foreign Minister John Baird has condemned the brutalities. So has American Secretary of State John Kerry — “when we have people murdering, assassinating in these mass massacres, you have to stop that.”

What of the far bigger massacre going on Syria for three long years — 160,000 dead so far and three million homeless? That has not stirred the U.S., Canada and others into action. Canada has not even opened its doors to refugees from Bashar Assad’s butchery — it has processed less than a dozen Syrian refugees so far.

In fact, the world’s inaction in Syria strengthened ISIS.

It is an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose more fanatical members set themselves up as guardians of the country’s minority Sunnis against the Nouri al-Maliki government and of the majority Sunni interests in Syria against Assad, an Alawite, a Shiite offshoot.

America, war-weary after Iraq and Afghanistan, did not want to get involved in Syria, so long as Assad kept the border with Israel quiet. It would assist the anti-Assad forces but not much. One reason proffered was that it was wary of arming the jihadists. Ironically, some moderate anti-Assad forces now find themselves battling ISIS rather than battling Assad.

In Iraq, ISIS flourished because of the ineptness of Maliki. Instead of trying to be prime minister for all Iraqis, he consolidated his and Shiite power at the expense of the Sunni, Kurdish and Christian minorities. They and some of the old secular Baathist elements have joined hands with ISIS, without necessarily sharing its religious fanaticism.

Still, that does not explain who financed and armed ISIS in the first place? Iran and others point the finger at Saudi Arabia, which has been angry at the U.S. — first, for handing over Iraq to Iran and, second, doing little to stop Assad’s massacre of Syrian civilians. But the ISIS funding is said to be mostly from private Sunni sources in oil-rich Gulf nations — its gruesome videos highlighting its jihad to “liquidate the infidel Shiites” designed as fundraising tools.

The big picture is telling.

The U.S. opposes Iran and Syria. But it supports Maliki, a puppet of Iran and an ally of Syria. And it is working with Iran to save him.

Gen. Ghasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (the outfit that ensured the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009), is co-ordinating Maliki’s counteroffensive against ISIS. Obama is sending arms to add to the shipments sent since January, some of which went to the Sunni tribal chiefs who have since joined ISIS.

Maliki was the CIA’s choice for prime minister in 2006. That was the time when the anti-American insurgency had deteriorated into a civil war under then Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari, prompting Bush to ask the American ambassador in Baghdad, “Can you get rid of Jaafari?” To which Zalmay Khalilzad said, “Yes.” Then a CIA officer suggested Maliki, “a tough guy,” as a replacement. Maliki was later duly elected. Yet Maliki did not want American troops and bases beyond 2011.

Similarly, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, also a CIA pick, is refusing to sign an agreement to keep American troops and bases beyond 2014.

Iraqi troops, trained by the Americans, are surrendering to ISIS. What will the American- and Canadian-trained Afghan forces do when the Taliban come calling?

Thirteen years after the American invasion, bombs are still going off in Kabul, and the second largest city, Kandahar, is not secure. More than a decade after the American invasion of Iraq, bombs are going off in Baghdad and Maliki has lost Mosul, the second largest city.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.